User talk:Maddison2112
December 2011[edit]
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Beckonamist (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Maddison2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What did I do wrong? Maddison2112 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per WP:GAB, this is not an unblock request. What you appear to have done wrong is to be blocked already with another username, and evaded that block by creating a new username, which is not permitted as blocks are on a PERSON (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Maddison2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not Beckonomist. I don't know who Beckonomist is. 184.65.10.22 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Given the evidence based on your contributions, I'm afraid that isn't convincing. The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Maddison2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
According to Wikipedia policy, both you and Jayron are guilty of WP:AGF violations. Did you actually look at my edits? In what imaginary world did they support Beconomist?
Having now read more of what Beconomist said, or more importantly, how he or she was disrespected - with childlike, fallacious and hypocritical replies truly speaks volumes, and doesn't bode well for the future of this project.
WP:AGF violation by Jayron.
WP:AGF violation by Bushranger.
Maddison2112 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request - merely blaming others -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You'd be far better off trying to show the community how your edits are different, rather than accusing admins of non-WP:AGF actions. The unblock request above will be declined very shortly, and you now run the risk of having your talkpage access revoked. I can assure you - based on the types of contributions, all the WP:AGF in the world would not allow me to unblock. Once again, read WP:GAB, and amend your unblock accordingly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Maddison2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"You'd be far better off trying to show the community how your edits are different" Ok, here goes... We begin with an exchange between users Beckonmist and Kainaw. Afterwards, I make two small inputs. I've surrounded my inputs with ----------------- so they are easier to pickout. One was a question, thee other was a comment based on conversation between the two users. From what I gather, Kainaw took exeption to my understanding of the conversation, and immediately froze my account, forever. I just want my account back. Maddison2112 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) :::::::I agree that The Kryptos article should mention that Sanborn announced an error in 2006, and I agree that it is unnecessary to go into the details of the comments in the Kryptos discussion group, or about the events that happened after he announced the error. :::::::However, if we mention that Monet Friedrich found the words LAYERTWO in 2005, it is not the case then that we should also mention Paul Kiesel, Mark Siegal, Thorne Kontos, Chris Hanson, etc. With all due respect, no one in this group discovered plaintext in 2005. Only Monet, based on reliable sources. And there is NOTHING!!! more important to ANY discussion of Kryptos than who actually discovered plaintext. Everything else is but pure speculation. To claim that to clarify what ACTUALLY happened would be giving undue weight to the discussion is ridiculous. The discussion should not be about the scramble of a few after Sanborn mentioned the error. That's trivial. It should be about the error itself, and the implications of the error, which of course is to confirm that a year earlier, Monet Friedrich discovered plaintext. :::::::Now, to claim that the information is covered at the Kryptos timeline, is simply not true. And until corrections are made to the timeline that minimize discussion about what happened after Sanborn mentioned the error, and reaffirm what the error confirmed, it doesn't deserve to have a link from this article. Beckonamist (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I understand what you want to say, but it is completely wrong. Your claim is that everyone who solved it initially was wrong and that Monet was the only one who got it right. The error was not in the solutions. The error was in Kryptos itself. So, the original solutions are correct for the Kryptos text that is physically sitting on the ground. Monet's solution is correct for the intended Kryptos text that was never installed anywhere for anyone to see. I do not understand why you feel it is important to shift blame for the error away from a mistake in the Kryptos text and onto those who solved what was physically on the statue itself. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Again, you clearly don't understand what I'm claiming. To say that my "claim is that everyone who solved it initially was wrong and that Monet was the only one who got it right" is RIDICULOUS. Educate yourself. The entire issue concerns a small portion at the end of K2. Nothing to do with K1, nothing to do with K3 and nothing to do with most of K2. The extent of the ignorance displayed here is astounding. :::::::::To claim I "feel it is important to shift blame for the error away from a mistake in the Kryptos text" is, again, ENTIRELY without merit. NOTHING I've ever said could be used to justify such a claim. :::::::::Further, the distinction between what actually sits on the ground versus what was intended displays an utterly pathetic lack of understanding about Kryptos, about cryptology, about riddles. Beckonamist (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Beckonamist, please try to keep your comments civil. Comment only on the content, not on other contributors, thanks. --Elonka 20:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::If you aren't claiming that everyone got it wrong, why did you repeatedly add "thought" before "solved" in your edit? They thought they solved it means that they got it wrong. It isn't ridiculous to read it that way. That is what it means. If they only thought they solved it, they didn't solve it. So, your claim that it is ridiculous to read your edits that way is simply stupid. As for what they were solving - they were solving what is firmly sitting on the ground. They weren't solving some imaginary puzzle that wasn't anywhere to be seen. -- kainaw™ 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::"They thought they solved it means that they got it wrong. It isn't ridiculous to read it that way. That is what it means." :::::::::::So, if someone thought they did something, it follows from that that they didn't do it? LOL! :::::::::::Then to twist the argument by adding the only in "If they only thought they solved it, they didn't solve it." is disingenuous. Where, pray tell, did it ever say they only thought they solved it? :::::::::::Anyone resorting to such shameful behavior is, minimally, unqualified to be included such a discussion. Beckonamist (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Where did you claim they only thought they solved it? Your edit here: * He and others thought at the time that he had correctly deciphered... * David Stein had also thought he had solved... * a NSA team led by Ken Miller ... had thought they had solved... * They were mistaken. That clearly states that they thought they solved it, but were wrong. They didn't solve it. If that isn't what you mean, then try to make your point clearer. -- kainaw™ 21:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) ::Seriously, you make this way too easy. As I clearly stated (see above) there is absolutely no place where I say they ONLY thought they solved it. Notice also that NONE of the quotes you used include ONLY thought. This right here is more than enough to counter your claim. But there's more... ::If you were to read a book on critical thinking, you would learn that adding the word only serves to flip the direction of inference. Consider iff (if and only if), where iff is symbolized by <->, P<->Q - (P->Q ^ Q->P). You see, there is somewhat of a difference between saying "they thought" or "they did A" and saying "they only thought" or "they only did A". They have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meanings. Don't conflate them. And don't accuse someone with something they didn't do. ::Finally, you then go on to further insult the integrity of the conversation by AGAIN trying to CHEAT in your attempt to get your way. Do I really have to mention the sentence before the sentence "They were mistaken." -- that you obviously take out of context. Well, here it is... ::"All of these early attempts to solve Kryptos presumed that K2 ended with WESTIDBYROWS." Of which, of course... "They were mistaken." Beckonamist (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC) ::: It's not about trying to calculate the logical process, it's about what sources say. Wikipedia articles should be based predominantly on reliable secondary sources. See also the policy on "no original research". --Elonka 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC) -------------------------------------------------- ::::Elonka, is that really you talking in the mp3 interview links? Maddison2112 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) ----------------------------------------------------- :::It is apparent that you only care to argue and have no intention of improving this article. I am therefore adding you to my ignore list and will not see or respond to any further nonsense you wish to spew. -- kainaw™ 03:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC) ------------------------------------------------------ ::::LOL!!! I don't blame you kainaw, you were in over your head. Maddison2112 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC) ------------------------------------------------------------- :::::No problem Beckonamist. I can add your sockpuppet to my ignore list as well. -- kainaw™ 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC) :::::: Beckonamist (talk · contribs) has been blocked from Wikipedia for two weeks, and the sockpuppet Maddison2112 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs). If there are any further problems, we can probably just drop a note to Jayron32 to block any further alternate accounts. --Elonka 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, there's no way you're anything but a sock. The Beckonamist account was only blocked for 2 weeks, so you will be able to edit from that account again, provided you leave the POV at home and stay civil. Meanwhile, I'm blocking access to this talkpage, as further unblock requests are pointless. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.